So what has this to do with the product “soylent”? I can see it being of concern to DIY users, but then again, most modern soy based protein supplements are far from the forms described in those studies.

Well I guess most people living in asian countries are screwed considering their high soy intake from birth through adulthood. Oh wait, they have some of the longest life expectancies.

They might eat soy practically everyday but it’s lower levels than if you were consuming exclusively Soylent. 25-50mg per day is often the range given in studies for consumption in Asia. In fact, while the FDA doesn’t have a safe upper limit for soy isoflavones one of the major countries in Asia does. The food safety commission of Japan established an upper limit of 70-75 mg per day back in 2005. Consuming 2000 calories of Soylent per day gets you 212 or 260 depending on 1.6 or 2.0.

I think the real question with soy isoflavones is, is it binary? Most arguments I see both in favor of soy and against soy take a binary stance. That it is either good, or bad. There usually isn’t a middle ground. People either believe soy should be avoided period the end. Or that there is no danger to soy period the end. The possibility it’s good as long as you don’t consume too much isn’t often suggested. If we were talking about salt or protein or vitamin C we’d say that it’s both good and bad - depending on how much you consume. I suspect the same could be true of soy isoflavones. Though perhaps it isn’t, perhaps this is one thing you can consume an unlimited amount of with no negatives.

"whole soybean supplement caused increased luteal activity in mature cows at the start of the breeding season . In 2 year old cows it caused less luteal activity than normal."
Cows.

"The study found that those who ate tofu regularly had worse memory than those who did not. The study also found that tempe consumption increased memory, possibly due to its high levels of folate caused by fermentation."
Memory issues… Would need a lot more convincing on this one.

"Soy formula was found to increase the level of thyroid stimulating hormones in infants."
Infants. Not adults.

"Among the 49 children who developed a peanut allergy, almost a quarter had consumed soy milk during their first two years"
Not a very strong correlation, must less causation.

"People who consumed 92.5 grams of soy per 1000 Kcal were found to be 2.3 times more likely to be at risk for bladder cancer. The results were calculated to factor in levels of education and cigarette consumption in study participants."
Ah, here’s one. More relevant to soylent consumers.

"Men consuming soy protein had higher levels of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) than those consuming milk protein. According to many other studies (but not stated in the report), high levels of IFG-I are also found in rBGH milk and have been implicated in causing hormonal cancers."
I don’t understand this one.

"Soy foods were found to be high in oxalates and likely to contribute to kidney stones."
Okay

"In other words, men who consumed lots of soy had more stomach cancer and men and women who consumed lots of soy had more colorectal cancer. These results are especially interesting as soy proponents often claim that Asians have lower rates of colorectal cancer because they eat more soy."
Also confusing.

From the about us page on the OP’s link:

"As an alternative to the USDA lowfat, high-carbohydrate dietary guidelines, the Weston A. Price Foundation proposes Healthy 4 Life, a dietary plan in the form of a colorful booklet and poster featuring four food groups: animal foods; grains, legumes and nuts; vegetables and fruits; and healthy fats.

Rather than prescribe one-size-fits-all levels of macronutrients—fats, carbohydrates and proteins—the Healthy 4 Life plan recommends nutrient-dense versions of animal and plant foods, with particular emphasis on healthy traditional fats like butter, lard, egg yolks and coconut oil. The plan does not specify specific amounts of fats or carbohydrates because the need for these macronutrients varies with the individual. Those who engage in high levels of physical activity can incorporate more carbohydrates in the diet without gaining weight; those needing to lose weight or control blood glucose levels require more healthy fats in the diet as fats provide satiety and help keep blood sugar within a normal range.

The proposed 2010 USDA Dietary Guidelines perpetuate the mistakes of previous guidelines in demonizing saturated fats and animal foods rich in saturated fatty acids such as egg yolks, butter, whole milk, cheese, fatty meats like bacon and animal fats for cooking. The current obesity epidemic emerged as vegetable oils and refined carbohydrates replaced these healthy, nutrient-dense traditional fats. Animal fats supply many essential nutrients that are difficult to obtain from other sources.

By restricting healthy animal fats in school lunches and diets for pregnant women and growing children, the USDA Guidelines will accelerate the tragic epidemic of learning and behavior disorders. The nutrients found most abundantly in animal fats and organ meats—including choline, cholesterol and arachidonic acid—are critical for the development of the brain and the function of receptors that modulate thinking and behavior. The vitamins and fatty acids carried uniquely in saturated animal fats are necessary for normal reproduction. The 2010 Guidelines will increase infertility in this country, already at tragically high rates.

The colorful Healthy 4 Life booklet contains easy-to-understand explanations of the need for animal protein and saturated fats, along with basic recipes. You can access the Healthy 4 Life booklet as a PDF here, or order it by calling the WAPF office at (202) 363-4394 or printing out and mailing the Order Form."

Read through some of the replies on this thread; there are several anecdotes of 2.0 users saying there have been no changes in hormone levels after a 2.0 diet (including one guy who has a history of hormone issues):

I have recently heard that the isoflavones in soy may lower my testosterone (and increase my estrogen). Rather than rely on studies in rats and in people consuming far lower quantities, both of which may have no bearing on my experience, I am interested in finding hard data from people using high quantities (60%+) of Soylent 2.0 in their diet for extended periods of time (3 months+).
First a little background information, so you know I already understand the negative hype around soy is WAY ov…

I just thought that people reading this thread should be aware that the Weston Price Foundation (the link in the opening post) is not a reputable source of scientific or factual information.

The Weston Price people are heavily vested in raw milk consumption, and do their best to demonize soy, so their collection of anti-soy links will be a list of everything they can find that’s even remotely anti-soy (and I do mean remotely), and will omit the (much larger) body of evidence showing no harm. Their site is otherwise full of peudo-scientific nonsense.

I've been seeing flyers around lately for a upcoming lecture in D.C. by Weston A. Price Foundation president Sally Fallon. Today I got spam from them about it, which prompts me to post a bit about these shills and quacks. The Weston A. Price...

If I remember correctly, the original reason for creating Soylent was to improve the diet of someone who was otherwise subsisting largely on processed pre-package foods (I believe that “microwave burritos” was the example used). So, regardless of how you feel about soy, it is important to remember that Soylent is not intended to be better than all ways of eating. The value of changing your diet to Soylent is relative to the value of your current diet. So, because this thread seems to be largely concerned with cancer, we can ask these questions-Is your current diet more carcinogenic than a diet composed of Soylent? Is Soylent more nutritionally complete than what you are currently eating? If the answer is yes, then it may behoove you to add Soylent to your diet. Yes, there are other ways to change your diet for the better, but, for many people, Soylent is a less expensive and easier way to do this. Also, I would like to point out that I think that using Soylent could potentially be very helpful to those who are anxious about eating. Many eating disorders develop out of a need for control in one’s life. Soylent offers absolute control over what your are putting into your body. No guessing about nutrition or calorie consumption. For some individuals, this may relieve a great deal of stress.

One in five people in the world subsist mostly on fish and veggies every day but when soylent had a heavy metals chart with fish as an example meal, conspiracy theories were in full flush. Now its soy, next week itll be some random thickener or an “unnatural” sugar lol…

The entire website is full of quackery and food woo. Anything published there can be safely disregarded, and any “medical expert” advocating the drinking of raw milk has just shown their idiocy and/or recklessness.

[quote=“RaiderDuck, post:16, topic:25704”]and any “medical expert” advocating the drinking of raw milk has just shown their idiocy and/or recklessness.[/quote]Raw milk is safe if done correctly.

It requires a more care, well trained farmers and farm hands, and well maintained equipment (refrigeration) along the entire transportation route, but it’s certainly doable. And there’s even some small health benefits from doing so. Also taste much richer.

Though it’s unlikely those benefits outweigh the cost for most people. And of course, it’s not always done correctly.

That’s exactly my point. Most foods, prepared incorrectly, will not actually kill you. Raw milk can, and medical professionals should not be advocating its use when there is literally no proven benefit over its pasteurized equivalent.

[quote=“RaiderDuck, post:18, topic:25704”]
That’s exactly my point. Most foods, prepared incorrectly, will not actually kill you. Raw milk can, and medical professionals should not be advocating its use when there is literally no proven benefit over its pasteurized equivalent.
[/quote]There’s no proven benefit from eating fugu either. Which can also kill you if prepared incorrectly. Doesn’t stop people.

The smarter thing to do would be to increase the regulations on RAW milk, with regular inspections, rather than ban it.

The smarter thing to do would be to increase the regulations on RAW milk, with regular inspections, rather than ban it.

Growing up in Oregon, I remember reading stories a couple of times a year about another hippie living out in the country who became severely ill and/or died from drinking raw milk. Mind you, this was “certified” raw milk that had undergone all the testing and inspections and everything. The dairies would always apologize and say “Nothing like this ever happened before. We take the utmost precautions blah blah blah,” which did nothing for the grieving families.

When one mistake can mean death, cigarette-type warnings on raw milk may be called for.